English for Academic Purposes I (2022) L11 – How to write a good summary (Ans)

_________________________________________________________________________________

L11 – How to write a good summary (Ans)

Introductory Sentence
A summary begins with an introductory sentence that states the title of the article, the
author’s name, year of publication and the author's main purpose in writing the article.

Examples:
In the article "Why Two Best Friends Doesn't Work," Grimes (2019) argues that most
teenage girls can't get along in groups of more than two.

In the article "Cats Don't Dance", Wood (2017) explains why cats are not good at any
activities that require cooperation.

Your first sentence should summarize the article. The rest of your summary should cover
some of the central ideas used to support the main thesis. Be sure to restate these ideas in
your own words. A good summary should contain only the ideas of the original text. Do not
insert any of your own opinions, interpretations, deductions or comments into a summary.

How to Identify Important Arguments in an Article

1. Read on a paper copy or use a computer program that lets you make annotations.
2. Underline the topic sentence of each paragraph. (If no one sentence tells the main
concept, then write a summary of the main point in the margin.)
3. Write that sentence in your own words on the side of the page.
4. When you finish the article, read all the topic sentences you marked or wrote down.
5. In your own words, rewrite those main ideas.
6. Use complete sentences with good transition words.
7. Be sure you don't use the same words, phrases, or sentence structure as the original.
8. You may find you need to leave out some of the unimportant details and examples.
9. Your summary should be as short and concise as possible.

As you write your summary, you will want to remind your reader occasionally that you are
still summarizing. You can do this simply be referring back to the author, by using pronouns
or proper APA in-text citations. A single citation at the end of the summary will not meet
reference requirements for the APA style.

1
English for Academic Purposes I (2022) L11 – How to write a good summary (Ans)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Assuming that you are going to write a summary, read the article below and answer the
following questions.
1. Write the first sentence: (see sample summary on page 3)
2. Underline key sentences in the article. (see below)
3. How many key points can you identify? Intro + 4 reasons = 5

Article 1: The measurement of happiness

Author: Stephen Bailey Year: 2011
Book title: Academic writing: A handbook for international students
Publisher: Routledge.
Economists have recently begun to pay more attention to studying happiness. They have found that
in the last 50 years there has been no apparent increase in personal happiness in Western nations,
despite steadily growing economic wealth. In both Europe and the USA surveys have found no rise
in the level of happiness since the 1950s, which seems surprising given that wealthier people
generally claim to be happier than poorer people. In America, for example, more than a third of the
richest group said they were ‘very happy’, while only one sixth of the poorest made the same claim.
Although it would be logical to expect that rising national wealth would lead to greater general
happiness, this has not happened. Individually, more money does seem to increase happiness, but
when the whole society becomes richer, individuals do not appear to feel better off.

One possible explanation has been that people rapidly get used to improvements, and therefore
devalue them because they are taken for granted. Central heating is a good example: whereas 50
years ago it was a luxury item, today it is standard in nearly every home. Another theory is that the
figures for GDP per person, used to assess national wealth, do not take into account quality of life
factors such as environmental damage or levels of stress, which must affect people’s feelings of
happiness. The report of a commission set up by the French president recently claimed that the
French were comparatively better off than had been previously thought, due to their generous
holidays and effective health care system, factors which basic GDP figures had ignored.

A further explanation for the failure of wealth to increase happiness is the tendency for people to
compare their own position to that of their neighbours. Studies show that people would prefer to
have a lower income, if their colleagues got less, rather than a higher income while colleagues got
more. In other words, happiness seems to depend on feeling better off than other people, rather than
on any absolute measure of wealth. Further research suggests that having free time is also closely
linked to happiness, so that the pattern of working harder in order to buy more goods is unlikely to
increase well-being. Yet Western societies generally encourage employees to spend as much time at
work as possible.
Don’t turn to page 3 until you are told to do so.

2
English for Academic Purposes I (2022) L11 – How to write a good summary (Ans)
_________________________________________________________________________________

If the instruction asks you to summarise Article 1, with a particular focus on the reasons why
money cannot buy happiness, is the following sample summary a good summary? Why?

In his article “the measurement of happiness”, Bailey (2011) proposed four reasons to
explain why happiness is not linked to the growth in wealth. One explanation is that
people soon become accustomed to gains and so do not appreciate them. It also seems
likely that GDP measurement ignores significant social and environmental factors which
affect personal well-being. He further suggested that happiness is often dependent on a
comparison with others. The last reason given by Bailey (2011) is related to leisure, which
is widely equated with happiness. Consequently, the idea of increasing workload to gain
more purchasing power is not going to result in greater happiness.

Which of the following reasons can explain why the summary above is a good summary?
( T / F ) it contains the main reasons why money cannot buy happiness
( T / F ) a proper in-text citation is used
( T / F ) there is a clear and effective opening sentence
( T / F ) good paraphrasing and summarising skills are demonstrated
( T / F ) good cohesion, i.e. sentences are well connected so that the flow of ideas is easy
to follow, is found

*************************************************************************

The length of your Assignment 2 article will be similar to the length of Article 2 (p.4 – p.6),
which contains 3 benefits and 3 drawbacks of eliminating meat from our diets. Can you
identify them?

Key content points

Introduction: para.1 – para.2
 cutting out meat delivers multiple benefits … … but if everyone became a committed
vegetarian, there would be serious drawbacks for millions of people
Benefit 1: para.3 – para.4
 With no livestock industry >> anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will plummet
Benefit 2: para.5
 With no livestock industry >> grasslands and forests can be restored >> capture
carbon and further alleviate climate change >> a boon to biodiversity
Benefit 3: para.11
 a global mortality reduction of 6-10%, thanks to a lessening of coronary heart disease,
diabetes, stroke and some cancers

3
English for Academic Purposes I (2022) L11 – How to write a good summary (Ans)
_________________________________________________________________________________

Drawback 1: para.7 – para.8

 significant unemployment and social upheaval, especially in rural communities with
close ties to the industry >> a huge amount of economic disruption
Drawback 2: para.9 – para.10
 Without livestock, life in certain environments would become impossible for nomadic
groups >> likely losing their cultural identity in the process
Drawback 3: para.12
 without a good source of micronutrients >> a health crisis in the developing world
Conclusion: para.13 – para.15
 no need to convert all the people to vegetarians >> moderation in meat-eating’s
frequency and portion size is key

Instruction: Write a summary of the article below, with a particular focus on the benefits and
drawbacks there would be if the whole world adopted vegetarianism. Your summary should be
between 200 words and 250 words long.

Article 2: What would happen if the world suddenly went vegetarian?

Author: Rachel Nuwer
Date: 27th September 2016

(para. 1) People become vegetarians for a variety of reasons. Some do it to alleviate animal suffering,
others because they want to pursue a healthier lifestyle. Still others are fans of sustainability or wish to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. No matter how much their carnivorous friends might deny it, vegetarians
have a point: cutting out meat delivers multiple benefits. And the more who make the switch, the more
those perks would manifest on a global scale. But if everyone became a committed vegetarian, there would
be serious drawbacks for millions, if not billions, of people.

(para. 2) “It’s a tale of two worlds, really,” says Andrew Jarvis of Colombia’s International Centre for
Tropical Agriculture. “In developed countries, vegetarianism would bring all sorts of environmental and
health benefits. But in developing countries there would be negative effects in terms of poverty.” Jarvis and
other experts at the centre hypothesised what might happen if meat dropped off the planet’s menu
overnight.

(para. 3) First, they examined climate change. Food production accounts for one-quarter to one-third of all
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, and the brunt of responsibility for those numbers falls
to the livestock industry. Despite this, how our dietary choices affect climate change is often underestimated.
In the US, for example, an average family of four emits more greenhouse gases because of the meat they eat
than from driving two cars – but it is cars, not steaks, that regularly come up in discussions about global
warming. “Most people don’t think of the consequences of food on climate change,” says Tim Benton, a food
security expert at the University of Leeds. “But just eating a little less meat right now might make things a
whole lot better for our children and grandchildren.”

(para. 4) Marco Springmann, a research fellow at the Oxford Martin School’s Future of Food programme,
tried to quantify just how much better: he and his colleagues built computer models that predicted what
would happen if everyone became vegetarian by 2050. The results indicate that – largely thanks to the
4
English for Academic Purposes I (2022) L11 – How to write a good summary (Ans)
_________________________________________________________________________________
elimination of red meat – food-related emissions would drop by about 60%. If the world went vegan instead,
emissions declines would be around 70%. “When looking at what would be in line with avoiding dangerous
levels of climate change, we found that you could only stabilise the ratio of food-related emissions to all
emissions if everyone adopted a plant-based diet,” Springmann says. “That scenario is not very realistic – but
it highlights the importance that food-related emissions will play in the future.” Food, especially livestock,
also takes up a lot of room – a source of both greenhouse gas emissions due to land conversion and of
biodiversity loss. Of the world’s approximately five billion hectares (12 billion acres) of agricultural land, 68%
is used for livestock.

(para. 5) Should we all go vegetarian, ideally we would dedicate at least 80% of that pastureland to the
restoration of grasslands and forests, which would capture carbon and further alleviate climate change.
Converting former pastures to native habitats would likely also be a boon to biodiversity, including for large
herbivores such as buffalo that were pushed out for cattle, as well as for predators like wolves that are often
killed in retaliation for attacking livestock. The remaining 10 to 20% of former pastureland could be used for
growing more crops to fill gaps in the food supply. Though a relatively small increase in agricultural land, this
would more than make up for the loss of meat because one-third of the land currently used for crops is
dedicated to producing food for livestock – not for humans.

(para. 6) Both environmental restoration and conversion to plant-based agriculture would require planning
and investment, however, given than pasturelands tend to be highly degraded. “You couldn’t just take cows
off the land and expect it to become a primary forest again on its own,” Jarvis says.

(para. 7) People formerly engaged in the livestock industry would also need assistance transitioning to a
new career, whether in agriculture, helping with reforestation or producing bioenergy from crop byproducts
currently used as livestock feed. Some farmers could also be paid to keep livestock for environmental
purposes. “I’m sitting here in Scotland where the Highlands environment is very manmade and based largely
on grazing by sheep,” says Peter Alexander, a researcher in socio-ecological systems modelling at the
University of Edinburgh. “If we took all the sheep away, the environment would look different and there
would be a potential negative impact on biodiversity.”

(para. 8) Should we fail to provide clear career alternatives and subsidies for former livestock-related
employees, meanwhile, we would probably face significant unemployment and social upheaval – especially
in rural communities with close ties to the industry. “There are over 3.5 billion domestic ruminants on earth,
and tens of billions of chickens produced and killed each year for food,” says Ben Phalan, who researches the
balance between food demand and biodiversity at the University of Cambridge. “We’d be talking about a
huge amount of economic disruption.”

(para. 9) But even the best-laid plans probably wouldn’t be able to offer alternative livelihoods for
everyone. Around one-third of the world’s land is composed of arid and semi-arid rangeland that can only
support animal agriculture. In the past, when people have attempted to convert parts of the Sahel – a
massive east-to-west strip of Africa located south of the Sahara and north of the equator – from livestock
pasture to croplands, desertification and loss of productivity have ensued. “Without livestock, life in certain
environments would likely become impossible for some people,” Phalan says. That especially includes
nomadic groups such as the Mongols and Berbers who, stripped of their livestock, would have to settle
permanently in cities or towns – likely losing their cultural identity in the process.

(para. 10) Plus, even those whose entire livelihoods do not depend on livestock would stand to suffer. Meat
is an important part of history, tradition and cultural identity. Numerous groups around the world give
livestock gifts at weddings, celebratory dinners such as Christmas centre around turkey or roast beef, and
meat-based dishes are emblematic of certain regions and people. “The cultural impact of completely giving
up meat would be very big, which is why efforts to reduce meat consumption have often faltered,” Phalan
5
English for Academic Purposes I (2022) L11 – How to write a good summary (Ans)
_________________________________________________________________________________
says.

(para. 11) The effect on health is mixed, too. Springmann’s computer model study showed that, should
everyone go vegetarian by 2050, we would see a global mortality reduction of 6-10%, thanks to a lessening
of coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke and some cancers. Eliminating red meat accounts for half of that
decline, while the remaining benefits are thanks to scaling back the number of calories people consume and
increasing the amount of fruit and vegetables they eat. A worldwide vegan diet would further amplify these
benefits: global vegetarianism would stave off about 7 million deaths per year, while total veganism would
knock that estimate up to 8 million. Fewer people suffering from food-related chronic illnesses would also
mean a reduction in medical bills, saving about 2-3% of global gross domestic product.

(para. 12) But realising these projected benefits would require replacing meat with nutritionally appropriate
substitutes. Animal products contain more nutrients per calorie than vegetarian staples like grains and rice,
so choosing the right replacement would be important, especially for the world’s estimated two billion-plus
undernourished people. “Going vegetarian globally could create a health crisis in the developing world,
because where would the micronutrients come from?” Benton says.

(para. 13) But fortunately, the entire world doesn’t need to convert to vegetarianism or veganism to reap
many of the benefits while limiting the repercussions. Instead, moderation in meat-eating’s frequency and
portion size is key. One study found that simply conforming to the World Health Organization’s dietary
recommendations would bring the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions down by 17% – a figure that would drop
by an additional 40% should citizens further avoid animal products and processed snacks. “These are dietary
changes that consumers would barely notice, like having a just-slightly-smaller piece of meat,” Jarvis says.
“It’s not this either-or, vegetarian-or-carnivore scenario.”

(para. 14) Certain changes to the food system also would encourage us all to make healthier and more
environmentally-friendly dietary decisions, says Springmann – like putting a higher price tag on meat and
making fresh fruits and vegetables cheaper and more widely available. Addressing inefficiency would also
help: thanks to food loss, waste and overeating, fewer than 50% of the calories currently produced are
actually used effectively. “There is a way to have low productivity systems that are high in animal and
environmental welfare – as well as profitable – because they’re producing meat as a treat rather than a daily
staple,” Benton says. “In this situation, farmers get the exact same income. They’re just growing animals in a
completely different way.”

(para. 15) In fact, clear solutions already exist for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the livestock
industry. What is lacking is the will to implement those changes.

6
English for Academic Purposes I (2022) L11 – How to write a good summary (Ans)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Task 4
Article 2 is written by “Rachel Nuwer” in 2016. Which of the following is the correct in-text
citation?
A. (Rachel Nuwer, 2016)
B. (Rachel N., 2016)
C. (Rachel, 2016)
D. (R. Nuwer, 2016)
E. (Nuwer, 2016) 

Task 5
Complete the table below by writing the correct in-text citations.
No. of authors Surname Year In-text citation
Anderson (2001)……
1 Charles Anderson 2001
or (Anderson, 2001)
Rae (2013)……
1 Tina Rae 2013
or (Rae, 2013)
Kingsley (2001)……
1 Jessica Kingsley 2001
or (Kingsley, 2001)
Charlton and Roberts
Brittany Charlton, and Andrea (2018)……
2 2018
Roberts or (Charlton & Roberts,
2018)
Andrew Novick, Gina Forster,
James Hassell, Daniel Davies, Novick et al. (2015)……
7 2015
Jamie Scholl, Kenneth Renner, or (Novick et al., 2015)
and Michael Watt.

Task 6
If you want to refer to a piece of evidence by Ben Phalan in paragraph 8 of article 2, which of
the following format it correct?

A. (B. Phalan, as cited in R. Nuwer, 2016)

B. (Phalan, B., as cited in Nuwer, R., 2016)
C. (Phalan, as cited in Nuwer, 2016) 
D. (R. Nuwer, as cited in B. Phalan, 2016)
E. (Nuwer, R., as cited in Phalan, B., 2016)
F. (Nuwer, as cited in Phalan, 2016)